Nasco Management Services Limited V. A. N. Amaku Transport Limited (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MANGAJI, J.CA.

The main appeal in this case, concerned the judgment of Uloko, Chief Judge of Plateau State the date of the delivery of which has become the primary issue. In it the learned trial Judge found the claim of the respondent as plaintiff proved and concluded as follows:-

“On the whole, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved its claim against the defendant. Consequently, I hereby enter judgment for the plaintiff, against the defendant in the sum of N3,240.000.00.

The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff, of the sum of N3,240.000.00 as damages for the detention of its trailer tanker, BO 2913 P from 16/12/93, until 30/11/94, when it was conditionally released by the court.”

The appellant was thoroughly dissatisfied with the above judgment. It accordingly, filed a notice of appeal containing four ground dated 11th August, 1995. It seems after the judgment, the respondent applied by a writ of fifa and levied execution on some of the property of the appellant. In order to arrest further execution and to have those property attached returned to the appellant, a motion on notice was filed before the court below, seeking for the following reliefs:-

MOTION ON NOTICE

“TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the ………day of …. 1995, at the hour of 9’0 clock in the forenoon or so, soon thereafter as counsel on behalf of the applicant may be heard praying this court for:-

(a) An order recalling the writ of fifa (execution) and the Notice of attachment issued pursuant to the judgment of this court.

(b) An order suspending and or staying the execution and or further execution of the judgment of this honourable court, pending the determination of the appeal.

(c) An order setting aside the execution and attachment of the properties of the judgment debtor, and releasing from attachment the properties of the judgment debtor.

(d) An order restraining the respondents, any bailiff of this court, their agents, servants or privies from attaching, or selling properties of the judgment debtor.”

The application was argued on 19/9/95, and in a reserved ruling delivered on 20/9/95, the whole application was found to be unmeritorious. It was accordingly dismissed in its entirety. The appellant was again dissatisfied with the ruling. In the event, it filed a notice of appeal questioning the ruling on three grounds. The notice and grounds of appeal was dated 16/11/95. The two notices of appeal were both incorporated in one file and were given same appeal number. That in my view, explains why the appellant after filing a motion seeking to consolidate the two appeals, withdrew the motion which was accordingly struck out on 6/11/97, because in reality there are no two appeals that could be consolidated.

Be that as it may on 17/3/97 learned Counsel for the appellant argued a motion which he filed on the same day, seeking for extention of time to file the appellant’s briefs of argument. This court granted the application and the two briefs of argument exhibited one each for the two appeals were deemed properly filed and served. The brief in respect of the main appeal, was however amended by leave of this court and the brief filed on 11/5/2000, was submitted was substituted in its place. In the brief on the main appeal the appellant identified three issues as arising for determination. These issues are:-

“(1) Whether the judgment of the lower court based on the affidavit evidence and other considerations relied upon was proper in law to establish the liability of the defendant.